IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
(Margaret Cullen) Yes
(Brian Carpenter) No Objection
Comment (2005-03-29 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
Review comment: There's one minor nit in that the [ROUTERSEL] reference needs updating, but that can be resolved by RFC editor or during AUTH48. Regards, Mary H. Barnes email@example.com
(Bill Fenner) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection
(Sam Hartman) No Objection
(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection
(Russ Housley) No Objection
(David Kessens) No Objection
Comment (2005-03-30 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
Comments from the Ops directorate by Pekka Savola (Mar 30 17:47:13 PST 2005): Basically a good document. Two medium-level comments: - [ROUTERSEL] should probably be a Normative reference, as the doc appears to be referring/depending on that behaviour. The draft in question is past the IESG, in AD followup so it shouldn't be an issue. - Introduction says, "It is typically desirable when there is more than one equivalent router that hosts distribute their outgoing traffic among these routers. This shares the load among multiple routers and provides better performance for the host's traffic." I would s/typically/often/, because whether this is really typical or not is in the eye of the beholder, and I doubt there's any real measurement of the desired behaviour out there.